Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

J. Bradford DeLong is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was Deputy Assistant US Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration, where he was heavily involved in budget and trade negotiations. His role in designing the bailout of Mexico during the 1994 peso crisis placed him at the forefront of Latin America’s transformation into a region of open economies, and cemented his stature as a leading voice in economic-policy debates.

Let's forget about the steel industry, which Delong conveniently uses to promote his beliefs. Is balanced trade good or bad for deficit economies? Does it allow them to pursue expansionary policies without fear of damaging the current account or not? Do chronic deficits tilt the economy towards services and make it prone to bubbles or not? Does increased foreign debt (i.e. the result of trade deficits) bring forth a deflationary bias in the economy or not? These are but a few questions that one may ask the so-called liberal economists who have been trying to convince people that trade deficits don't matter, that permanent current-account imbalances are irrelevant and so on.

It's sad that Project Syndicate is so one sided that it doesn't even ask heterodox economists to write articles about the other side of the coin,.

"They are natural allies for those who think that America’s income and wealth gap could stand to be even wider than it already is."

Wow, a person might actually think Brad opposes inequality. Nice pose. No truth to it. Brad is a fanatical supporter of "diversity" which maximizes inequality. Here is a trivial test. Does Brad extol the virtues of California (a high inequality state) or Iowa (a low inequality state)? Any guesses? Like most of the identity politics left, Brad is completely willing to support staggering economic inequality as long as racial and sexual quotas are carefully enforced. "Let them eat diversity" is his philosophy.

Here are a few quotes from Robert E Scott about the trade deals that Brad espouses.

"It's no surprise that voters on the right and the left are uneasy with U.S. trade policy — and they have every right to be. For years, the United States has consistently run much larger trade deficits than other developed nations, and we have suffered more trade-related job loss as a result. While growing exports tend to support domestic employment, growing imports costs jobs and reduces domestic output. Thus, the size and growth of trade deficits is strongly correlated with trade-related job loss."

"Over the last 20 years, trade and investment deals have increased U.S. trade deficits and cost Americans their jobs. The agreement allowing China into the World Trade Organization led to trade deficits that eliminated 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013 alone. Meanwhile, the United States already faces a trade deficit with countries in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership that cost 2 million U.S. jobs in 2015 — a trade deficit which would surely get worse if the pact is enacted. But lost jobs are just the tip of the iceberg of trade's broader effect on the economy. "

"In his 2008 book, "Everybody Wins, Except for Most of Us," my colleague Josh Bivens shows that while the most privileged Americans have benefited from some cost-saving "efficiency gains" due to trade, increased global integration can harm most working Americans. Recently, Bivens estimated that the growth of trade with low-wage countries reduced the median wage for full-time workers without a college degree by about $1,800 per year in 2011. "

"Free Trade" makes the American people poor and people like Brad rich... Which is just the way he likes it.

Many (most?) people may not know this, but De Long is the "hero" of NAFTA. Of course, NAFTA has been a failure for the U.S. and Mexico (but not clique that supported it). So has De Long repented and admitted that "free trade" and Open Borders have been a disaster for the U.S.? Not exactly. Now he is doubling down by supporting "free trade" with China. Numerous academic studies (unemployment, life expectancy, addiction, innovation, etc.) have shown that "free trade" with China is a debacle for America. Of course, Brad is still a cheerleader. Some people will never give up the Pom Poms.

Was this article about trade policy or about bashing Trump? The fact is trade policy has massive long-term ramifications on the strength of a nation's economy. Often people fail to note the difference between free and fair trade. In many ways, the global economy has become an ill-regulated business model tilted to favor big business and giant conglomerates. We should not lose sight of the fact that while free trade is important, fair trade is far more so and should be the main issue.

Developing a long-term sustainable economic system that is balanced would contribute to both global cohesion and the world economy. The article below is in response to a slew of comments from my recent article titled, "Higher Prices On Import Goods A Fair Cost For Jobs". Today many people supporting past trade agreements mistakenly use low consumer prices as a battle flag around which to rally.

The foreign policy community has waken up. The economics community is still sleeping. China's totalitarian rise is a real threat to western democratic and free values. The window to contain China is narrowing rapidly.

You are mistaken. When a country (not its people but its govt) finances trade deficits that is not economics. That is corruption. You also do not understand Kalecki's profit equation. If you give an American $1 they will spend 20+cents on imports. If govt are manipulating then each $1 of govt deficits compensates for lost profits. THE DATA SHOWS 0.97!!! This next round of gov't spending will be interesting to see whether the currency manipulators take it or whether corporate & household savings finance it.

You don't know what your opponent believes because you think your ignorance is a virtue. See, I am starting this comment with insults just like your article.Personally, I would like to tax official foreign reserves that finance trade deficits. Money is fungible. Steel & aluminum are not. We should not be saying "if a country wants to take our profits we should let them". We should stand up for ourselves. Note the similarity with "if a country wants to sell us a product cheaper we should let them". Yes, as long as they buy a product from us so our profits are taken. Balanced trade is required and a trade deficit of 60%-100% of profits is foolish.

Hmmm.. so Trump is an idiot?.....this writer was one of the fools that allowed the unrestrained globalization agenda to unfold under Clinton where uncontrolled globalization was allowed to grow 8 times where as Global GDP only grew 3 times and most western economies flat-lined or worse... Anyway this is a very confused article... what's his real point?...